Just in case it's not clear from my original post, most of my motivation for wanting to formalize governance of the project is to continue down a path I've been pushing for some time now: I want the project to be less dependent on me.
My request to chair a meeting about governance in Copenhagen wasn't about my increasing my own role in the project, quite the opposite. I don't want to manage this project the rest of my life, I want other people to step up and help out and at some point I might want to fade off and do nothing more than introduce creative new bugs into the code from time-to-time :) I want new people to see just how they can become part of the leadership team. I want transparency and visibility. I want people who act like leaders (such as Peter, who's been acting more and more like a leader with every passing day) to be recognized as leaders in an unambiguous way. I like the notion of a committee of peers including folks like Jeff and Lars and Roberto and Dan and others who the community recognizes as being key tech members taking responsibility in a visible and explicit way. We've done this in a de facto way all along but it shouldn't be simply a matter of whim on the part of myself and a handful of others.
So the personal attacks are not only distracting, but absolutely mischaracterize my motives.
Mat - the best way to help out is to review the TIP doc and to think about how it fits into our project, and equally important how it doesn't fit. Our project is less monolithic then Tcl/Tk(we have the core, and lots of supported packages which can be managed somewhat independently yet we need implementation standards and coordination, etc.) How does this impact the kind of governance process we should adapt - or does it at all?
Or if you are aware of another governance approach that's documented that you think would work better ... propose it, and we'll all take a look at it.
Those are the kind of questions we should be discussing here.
